WCP1695

[1]¹ [p. 1]

19 November [18]68¹

Sir C. Lyell to M^r Wallace

I have been reading of Hä^ekel's¹ new work ^entitled "on the History of Creation²", [the] 6^th chapter entitled ^{of which is entitled} ["]the Development Theory of Lyell & Darwin³", in which ^where he points out that up to the period of the publication of my Principles of Geology^{4 in 1830}, Cuvier's⁵ notices[?] ^treatise on the "Theory of the Earth"⁶ or Discours sur les Révolutions de la Surface du Globe — had reigned paramount. That treatise was the had ^originally formed the introduction to his great work on "Fossil Bones"⁷, and had a great circulation in a separate form, the 6^th ed[itio]n appearing in Paris, the same year that the 1^st vol[ume] of my Principles was published in London. Cuvier's Treatise It had been translated into English by Prof. Jameson^{9 Prof. of Minerology & Geology in Edinburgh} and had a great run in this country. I see that my copy of the translation published in 1822 was already a 4^th ed[itio]ⁿ⁸ and I believe there were in a great many ^{later ones with} afterwards supplementary chapters by Jameson, being all written in the same spirit.

Cuvier particularly insisted ^{on the doctrine} that the Revolutions ^{of the globe attended by} consisted of repeated "Irruptions and Retreats of the Sea" had [2] [p. 2] been numerous, that they had neither been "slow nor gradual" they consisted of "sudden catastrophes" and in ^certain some strata the bones of land animals were buried under heaps of marine productions. There were also proofs of crystalline strata having been formed and raised out of the sea before any living beings had been created. He supposed that the changes in the living world & the destruction of one set of species after another had been the result of the Inccessive[sic] revolutions in the geography of the Earth — & Elie de Beaumont's⁹ theory of the sudden formation of mountain chains & alternate periods of repose & disorder naturally grew out of such an theory ^hypothesis. The opinion w[hic]^h runs through the whole of Al Dorbenay's A. D'Orbigny's¹⁰ "Palaeontology¹¹" in which we have 27 stages of distinct species none of them passing down from one stage to another is in harmony with this ^{such a} view [3] [p. 3] of paroxysmal changes & the annihilation of all the inhabitants of globe followed by the creation of a new & different group. Agassiz¹² brought up in the same French school fully embraced the same ideas of the simultaneous ^{& sudden} revolutions in the organic & inorganic world. Haeckel points out that my "Principles of Geology" came into the field ^{just at the time} the very year when, ^{as he says,} Cuvier's work on ^{celebrated his} great triumph over "Natural ^the Philosophy ^{of Nature},¹³ and that my book "struck at the very roots of Cuvier's hypothesis of creation". fixed firmly by his great authority the anti-Lamarckian notion & of about species. But I think Haeckel has not sufficiently shown that though I acquiesced in Cuvier's & Linnaeus's¹⁴ notion as to the origin of species [4] [p. 4] I particularly laboured in ^{the 1st &} every ^subsequent edition ^{to show} that the changes of the organic world ^{were now &} had been as gradual throughout ^{were now} all geological time as had those of the inorganic. No one before me had endeavoured systemmatically to establish the constant ^{& successive} extinction of species by natural causes w[hic]^{h is &} must always be going on. The picture of the history of creation presented by me in reference to the living creation has as much opposed to notions of violent & general catastrophes as was that given by Lamarck,¹⁵ and therefore prepared the scientific public for the reception of Darwin's teaching to a somewhat greater extent than, even Haeckel has pointed out though I believe he fully appreciates ^{the influence of my system} it. When first I wrote, the Cuvierian views had [5] [p. 5]¹⁶ penetrated deeply into the minds of the leading English geologists & the sch shock w[hic]^h the "Principles" gave to the popular faith in England was ^almost as rude in 1830 as if Hutton¹⁷ & Playfair¹⁸ had never written[.]

This makes the manner in which ^{a late} the writer¹⁹ in the Quarterly Review²⁰ ignored my book when treating of the modern schools of geology²¹ the more indefensible.

You must remember that my 2^nd vol[ume] w[hic]^h treated of Lamarck & the extinction of species came out in January 1832. The 1^st ed[itio]ⁿ of the "Vestiges"²² did not appear till 12 years afterwards on in 1844. By that time the public had been prepared by no less than 6 editions of the "Principles" for accepting the doctrine of continuity both in the animate & inanimate world, for I had expressly [6] [p. 6] argued in favour of the change in both being so gradual that it was never greater than it is now, and therefore insensible to ordinary observation. I presume ^see that Cuvier's "Theory of the Earth" as his "Revolutions of the Globe" were actually called, was translated into German under the title of In "Die Umwälzungen der Erde^rinde Rinde"²³ [German: The upheavals of the earth's crust] [one illeg. word] by Noeggerath²⁴, Bonn 1830 & it is evident that Haeckel believes its authority to have been quite as much felt in his own country as in England & France.

When I claim to have advocated a law of continuity in the organic world I do not of course ^admit mean to deny that I was ^{far from the notion of transmutation or evolution} opposed to Lamarck's transmutation & that the independent origin therefore of each species assumed by me may be be said to have implied a continued succession of breaks [7] [p. 7]²⁵ or minor interruptions somewhat like the spontaneous generation of Lamarck's monads — but I maintained in De Candolle's²⁶ language that all species of plants & animals were at war one with another, & that consequently they must die in the struggle for life as Buffon²⁷ had said "die out one after the other" ^because ["]time fights against them" & I said that new species must be always taking the place of the old ones or the otherwise the world would be depopulated. It would, I think, be useful for you to have at hand an early edition of my "Principles" in order that you may see how before Darwin had begun to write I had gone very far towards a law of continuity [8] [p. 8] in the changes of the organic world. You will also observe that I have purposely not altered my original abstract of Lamarck, for reasons given in the note at p.246. vol II[.]

Few people, & I among others would hardly believe that Lamarck went so far if this abstract had been written after Darwin and yet I did not do Lamarck justice see p.265-²⁷⁴ vol 2.

You will find some remarks on what I said claim of originality in regard to the continuity of the law of extinction of species in my "Antiquity of Man"²⁸ p.393. & the 2^nd vol. of My "Principles" ^{in chap XLII} p.433.

In several passages of my book, I have stated that the farther we recede from the present time, the wider was the divergence [9] [p. 9] of the forms of animals & plants from those now existing, and I conceive this to be connected with the greater discordance of climate & other external conditions, but when I first read your Paper²⁹ declaring that each new species had come into the world coincident in time & space with a closely allied species, it struck me as true though not capable of geological demonstration, and it shook my confidence together with other arguments in the same paper in the Independent Creation theory more than anything I have read before, for I never respected the "Vestiges" enough to be influenced by it, seeing that its author³⁰ was not a naturalist[.]